Mist Of Pandaria Cinematic vs Cyberpunk 2077 trailer: Production Quality

  • 128 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -
As usual, the thread has become "What do you like better: MoP or Cyberpunk 2077?" Because nobody in their right mind would think the Cyberpunk teaser was technically superior to the MoP cinematic.
#-48 Posted by mems_1224 (46697 posts) -

[QUOTE="Badosh"]Cyberpunk is so much better, it's not even close. Sorry TC. Ravenshout

No. Hispter.

how is he a hipster for liking the better trailer? :|
#-47 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

If you put a half-naked girl in a CGI trailer everyone will love it

Ravenshout

Yea like I'm a 15 years old teenager??? A simple fact that I'm a sci-fi fan is not valid eh? That I loved the concept? People come on stop being no sense...

It's not Ferrari to Lamborgini in terms of VISUAL.

It's Toyota to Lambo.

okAY have it your way then... I like the Toyota... /end of story!

#-46 Posted by HyperWarlock (3256 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="Badosh"]Cyberpunk is so much better, it's not even close. Sorry TC. mems_1224

No. Hispter.

how is he a hipster for liking the better trailer? :|

Better is a matter of opinion, I prefer WoW trailer.

#-45 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Ravenshout"] No. Hispter.

HyperWarlock

how is he a hipster for liking the better trailer? :|

Better is a matter of opinion, I prefer WoW trailer.

BUT CGI QUALITY is not a matter of opinions.

#-44 Posted by KungfuKitten (20900 posts) -

[QUOTE="Badosh"]Cyberpunk is so much better, it's not even close. Sorry TC. Ravenshout

No. Hispter.

Being anti-hipster is so hipster.
#-43 Posted by Ocid1 (362 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ocid1"]

You still babbling on about this?

Short answer: Cyberpunk

Long answer: Cyberpunk is the better trailer.

Ravenshout

You didn't even watch the Mist of Pandaria trailer before writing down your baseless answer.

I've seen it before fanny baws. Cyberpunk is still the better trailer.
#-42 Posted by Badosh (12729 posts) -
No. Hispter.Ravenshout
Yes, hipster.
#-41 Posted by mems_1224 (46697 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="Badosh"]Cyberpunk is so much better, it's not even close. Sorry TC. KungfuKitten

No. Hispter.

Being anti-hipster is so hipster.

this is true
#-40 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

As usual, the thread has become "What do you like better: MoP or Cyberpunk 2077?" Because nobody in their right mind would think the Cyberpunk teaser was technically superior to the MoP cinematic. princeofshapeir

lol i just went to watch the mop cinematic... man I think you're exaggerating by far. Okay mop had a little bit more detailed world because all the action was outdoors... however cyberpunk is much more realistic and texture quality is way better. Just take a look at the faces, or the cops, their guns... etc... What the hell you still talking about? You're just a Wow fanboy

#-39 Posted by el3m2tigre (4232 posts) -

They both look really good. I suppose i'll give it to CyberPunk only because i like the setting more.

#-38 Posted by CanYouDiglt (7321 posts) -
As usual, the thread has become "What do you like better: MoP or Cyberpunk 2077?" Because nobody in their right mind would think the Cyberpunk teaser was technically superior to the MoP cinematic. princeofshapeir
Yep that is all it is. On a tech level there is no way someone could say Cyberpunk is better.
#-37 Posted by moistsandwich (0 posts) -

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

I'm excited for Cyberpunk and have no interest in Mists of Pandaria.... that said, only a blind man could think the Cyberpunk trailer was even close to Blizzards CGI work. When it comes to CGI trailers.... Blizzard is 2nd to none.

Ravenshout

Square, DIGIC, BLUR equal them in some respects.

BLUR is nearly as good or on par with Blizzard.... Square? LOL take a hard look at SquareEnix's work.... its well done... but lacks the crazy amount of detail that Blizzard provides. SquareEnix doesnt even come close, unless you're a JRPG fanboy.

DIGIC? I'm not familiar with them, so I have no opinion.

#-36 Posted by enzyme36 (1483 posts) -

I think they are both cool... at least MoP trailer tells me a lil about what the game is about.....

I really have no clue what type of game or what I will be doing in Cyberpunk based on that trailer... am I the robot girl? or the judge dred looking guy?

off topic:

Also, is cyberpunk an FPS? or a 3rd person?

Is it rpg/ openworld.. or mission based?

#-35 Posted by HyperWarlock (3256 posts) -

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]As usual, the thread has become "What do you like better: MoP or Cyberpunk 2077?" Because nobody in their right mind would think the Cyberpunk teaser was technically superior to the MoP cinematic. V3rciS

lol i just went to watch the mop cinematic... man I think you're exaggerating by far. Okay mop had a little bit more detailed world because all the action was outdoors... however cyberpunk is much more realistic and texture quality is way better. Just take a look at the faces, or the cops, their guns... etc... What the hell you still talking about? You're just a Wow fanboy

You can't really compare them, one is going for realism and one is going for a comical, cartoonish look.

#-34 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]As usual, the thread has become "What do you like better: MoP or Cyberpunk 2077?" Because nobody in their right mind would think the Cyberpunk teaser was technically superior to the MoP cinematic. V3rciS

lol i just went to watch the mop cinematic... man I think you're exaggerating by far. Okay mop had a little bit more detailed world because all the action was outdoors... however cyberpunk is much more realistic and texture quality is way better. Just take a look at the faces, or the cops, their guns... etc... What the hell you still talking about? You're just a Wow fanboy

mop_cinematic_062.jpg

ibo5GByxTzByam.jpg

#-33 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -

I think they are both cool... at least MoP trailer tells me a lil about what the game is about.....

I really have no clue what type of game or what I will be doing in Cyberpunk based on that trailer... am I the robot girl? or the judge dred looking guy?

off topic:

Also, is cyberpunk an FPS? or a 3rd person?

Is it rpg/ openworld.. or mission based?

enzyme36
It's an open world RPG
#-32 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -
Why would you even ask that? MoP is a better trailer in terms of production values, but why do you even care about that and not the trailer as a whole?
#-31 Posted by moistsandwich (0 posts) -

of course cyberpunk wins.... angry big pandas suck.

Btw I used to be a huge Warcraft lore fan, not anymore though... they fUked up everything!

V3rciS

And there is your bias.... angry at Blizzard for "errors" made with their IP.

Children it seems are unable to look past the source material and judge something on its technical merits.

This has nothing to do with Futuristic guys with guns and a half naked cybernetic girl VS a Panda.... thats how a child looks at this debate.

You have to look past all that, at the quality inherant in each video. Sadly most of SW is not equipped with the intelligence to be able to seperate style preference with technical merits.

#-30 Posted by enzyme36 (1483 posts) -

[QUOTE="enzyme36"]

I think they are both cool... at least MoP trailer tells me a lil about what the game is about.....

I really have no clue what type of game or what I will be doing in Cyberpunk based on that trailer... am I the robot girl? or the judge dred looking guy?

off topic:

Also, is cyberpunk an FPS? or a 3rd person?

Is it rpg/ openworld.. or mission based?

princeofshapeir

It's an open world RPG

wow nice.... interest rises! setting looks really good for something like that

#-29 Posted by hexashadow13 (5157 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

I'm excited for Cyberpunk and have no interest in Mists of Pandaria.... that said, only a blind man could think the Cyberpunk trailer was even close to Blizzards CGI work. When it comes to CGI trailers.... Blizzard is 2nd to none.

moistsandwich

Square, DIGIC, BLUR equal them in some respects.

BLUR is nearly as good or on par with Blizzard.... Square? LOL take a hard look at SquareEnix's work.... its well done... but lacks the crazy amount of detail that Blizzard provides. SquareEnix doesnt even come close, unless you're a JRPG fanboy.

DIGIC? I'm not familiar with them, so I have no opinion.

They can certainly match in detail level. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiIx9VJWSl8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_VyJmzidLw
#-28 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

And there is your bias.... angry at Blizzard for "errors" made with their IP.

Children it seems are unable to look past the source material and judge something on its technical merits.

This has nothing to do with Futuristic guys with guns and a half naked cybernetic girl VS a Panda.... thats how a child looks at this debate.

You have to look past all that, at the quality inherant in each video. Sadly most of SW is not equipped with the intelligence to be able to seperate style preference with technical merits.

moistsandwich

Next time read posts carefully...

they might... I might be a little bit biased with my decision that's because I hate blizzard for ruinning the Warcraft universe with all this crap they released lately

V3rciS

#-27 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

your pics here

princeofshapeir

Okay so?

#-26 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -
[QUOTE="moistsandwich"]

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"] Square, DIGIC, BLUR equal them in some respects.

hexashadow13

BLUR is nearly as good or on par with Blizzard.... Square? LOL take a hard look at SquareEnix's work.... its well done... but lacks the crazy amount of detail that Blizzard provides. SquareEnix doesnt even come close, unless you're a JRPG fanboy.

DIGIC? I'm not familiar with them, so I have no opinion.

They can certainly match in detail level. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiIx9VJWSl8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_VyJmzidLw

Nope. They actually look marginally worse than WC3 cinematics.
#-25 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

#-24 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

seanmcloughlin

Exactly... I don't even know why this thread exists. The OP seems to put all his efforts just to bash Cyberpunk in all previous threads he created.

#-23 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

your pics here

V3rciS

Okay so?

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

#-22 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Ravenshout

That was a quote to princeofshapeir because he posted few pics of MoP to show the details in textures.

#-21 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

seanmcloughlin

Just want to prove that Blizzard CG is superior than what CDprojekt could pull off even using a specialist's help.

#-20 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

V3rciS

That was a quote to princeofshapeir because he posted few pics of MoP to show the details in textures.

He only posted a pic, and it was very detailed.

#-19 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

V3rciS

Exactly... I don't even know why this thread exists. The OP seems to put all his efforts just to bash Cyberpunk in all previous threads he created.

Because he can't stand that other people like it and say it looks good because some other companies do really great CG.He's a tad bit obsessed

I still don't understand the point of pitting CG against CG. Says nothing about a devs capability to create a good game.

#-18 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

Ravenshout

Just want to prove that Blizzard CG is superior than what CDprojekt could pull off even using a specialist's help.

Why? What purpose does that pose?

#-17 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

your pics here

Ravenshout

Okay so?

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Sure let me just ask Bill next door, the CG artist.

#-16 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Okay so?

seanmcloughlin

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Sure let me just ask Bill next door, the CG artist.

I actually spend a lot of time scrutinizing CG trailers. I watch them over and over again to find faults.

#-15 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

Ravenshout

Just want to prove that Blizzard CG is superior than what CDprojekt could pull off even using a specialist's help.

Why don't you also have the urge to prove that Blizzards budget is like US$ 4.755 billion when CD Projekts Red is like $46m
so please shut the fuk up already... seriously now

#-14 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

your pics here

Ravenshout

Okay so?

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Pandaren.jpg

That hair

#-13 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Do we really need to go through this exact thread again? :|

V3rciS

Just want to prove that Blizzard CG is superior than what CDprojekt could pull off even using a specialist's help.

Why don't you also have the urge to prove that Blizzards budget is like US$ 4.755 billion when CD Projekts Red is like $46m
so please shut the fuk up already... seriously now

Ooh, the damage control has already begun.
#-12 Posted by Jebus213 (8753 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Okay so?

princeofshapeir

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Pandaren.jpg

That hair

Yeah I'm not impressed. Most Blizzard games suck anyway so yeah.
#-11 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"] Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Ravenshout

Sure let me just ask Bill next door, the CG artist.

I actually spend a lot of time scrutinizing CG trailers. I watch them over and over again to find faults.

Why? That's a pretty sad waste of time. Look at anything long enough and you will find faults.

#-10 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Okay so?

princeofshapeir

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Pandaren.jpg

That hair

It has over 30k individual follicles, and all of those were rendered with different hair-movement simulations. I watched the Behind Scene by the way. Leah's and Deckard Cain's heads are less complex.

#-9 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="V3rciS"]

Okay so?

princeofshapeir

Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Pandaren.jpg

That hair

Yes it's very impressive, no one said differently. TC just keeps making it sound like they did.

In all these threads and arguments TC has posed Blozzard have betetr CG, and no one has said otherwise. No one said Cyberpunk's CG is the best ever, yet he keeps making threads like the opposite happened.

#-7 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"] Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Jebus213

Pandaren.jpg

That hair

Yeah I'm not impressed. Most Blizzard games suck anyway so yeah.

You have got not idea how much detail there is on the model.

#-6 Posted by princeofshapeir (13837 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"] Yeah I'm not impressed. Most Blizzard games suck anyway so yeah.

*Valve
#-5 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"] Those are flat textures. Lack of details. Also, Static Sci-Fi images are easy to render. Ask any CG artist.

Ravenshout

That hair

It has over 30k individual follicles, and of of those were rendered with different hair-movement simulations. I watched the Behind Scene by the way. Leah's and Deckard Cain's heads are less complex.

So now it's just a jerking session between you two?

I fail to see how this thread or anything posed in it is SW material

#-4 Posted by V3rciS (2213 posts) -

your pic here

That hair

princeofshapeir

That skin.. that eyes

Ooh, the damage control has already begun. princeofshapeir

Lol of course it's so convenient to compare the budget of a multinational EMPIRE to a small Polish studio with a small fixed budget available!

#-3 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jebus213"][QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]

That hair

Ravenshout

Yeah I'm not impressed. Most Blizzard games suck anyway so yeah.

You have got not idea how much detail there is on the model.

And you have no idea how little gamers actually care. We play games, not trailers. Show people in game characters that look like that and people will have a proper discussion or something worthwhile to debate

#-2 Posted by Ravenshout (1210 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Sure let me just ask Bill next door, the CG artist.

seanmcloughlin

I actually spend a lot of time scrutinizing CG trailers. I watch them over and over again to find faults.

Why? That's a pretty sad waste of time. Look at anything long enough and you will find faults.

It was very easy to find faults in the Cyberpunk trailer. Why? It attempted to be realistic, thus falling into the uncanny valley. The girl is scary rather than 'human'.

#-1 Posted by UCF_Knight (6863 posts) -
This thread is nice. Blizzard fanboys needed a sanctuary to protect each other from the rest of System Wars.
#0 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38214 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="Ravenshout"] I actually spend a lot of time scrutinizing CG trailers. I watch them over and over again to find faults.

Ravenshout

Why? That's a pretty sad waste of time. Look at anything long enough and you will find faults.

It was very easy to find faults in the Cyberpunk trailer. Why? It attempted to be realistic, thus falling into the uncanny valley. The girl is scary rather than 'human'.

You are arguing something I never even said :? You're sounding like heewee now